Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[The_Rocketeer]

@Diche Bach

So I finally googled and found this article:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/02/to-protect-or-serve

and I don't know if that's current or not - it is pretty old - but I'll take it as a fair representation of the lack of clarity we've been batting between us.

For me, it boils down to this. I know that to play games with an EULA, I'm presumed to have agreed to the EULA. If I disagree with the EULA for whatever reason, I know what I'm supposed to do is not play the game, and walk away entirely. I don't have the option to reject the EULA and still play the game. Even if the EULA is completely illegal, that still isn't an option - I would have to legally challenge the EULA in court for amendments to be made to make it legal, and then still ultimately accept it or reject the game in its entirety.

And that's the point where this all comes apart. If I play the game without accepting the terms, I'm acting immorally because I know I don't have that option.

Of course I have to reconcile my sense of moral rectitude with my general laziness... so I should technically read EULAs (which I almost never do) and agree to them all whole-heartedly (which I obviously can't) before playing.... but who can be bothered? But that does mean I am compromised to some extent - I can't pretend that I know I've behaved properly and that I'm on the right side of all this. So I can't rely on the moral highground to save me if the legal waters start to rise, I just have to keep hoping they don't.

Or I could start reading all my EULAs, and see you next Christmas?

[Derb]

5 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

It's been already made clear that at least in some countries that a mere change of format ( ie, exporting from Unity to KSP ) would not be enough for TTI to claim anything. Regardless I can't see any way in which they could feasably claim source, and without that nothing is maintainable.

Wouldn't US law be most relevant considering T2 is based in the good ol' US of A?

[The_Rocketeer]

6 minutes ago, Derb said:

Wouldn't US law be most relevant considering T2 is based in the good ol' US of A?

Don't know. I live in the UK. My purchase was through Steam (based in USA), but at the time the terms of the EULA were with Deported BV (based in the Netherlands), representing Squad (who were based in Mexico)...

Edited March 8, 2018 by The_Rocketeer

[Derb]

Just now, The_Rocketeer said:

Don't know. I live in the UK. My purchase was through Steam (based in USA), but at the time the terms of the EULA were with Deported BV (based in the Netherlands), representing Squad (who were based in Mexico)...

To be clear, I mean as pertains copyright and possible infringement by T2, since the violation would presumably occur in the USA.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, Derb said:

To be clear, I mean as pertains copyright and possible infringement by T2, since the violation would presumably occur in the USA.

Then, nope. Not unless the copyright infringement was in the USA.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/03/international-copyright-protection-how-does-it-w__
 

From the above:

Quote

Regardless of the protection an author has secured for the work in the United States, acts of infringement that occur outside of the jurisdiction of the United States cannot be addressed under the U.S. Copyright Act because copyright laws do not have any extraterritorial operation.

Edit: Or rather, yep, so long as the in infringement WAS in the USA! (I should read more carefully)

Edited March 8, 2018 by The_Rocketeer

[Derb]

Just now, The_Rocketeer said:

Then, nope. Not unless the copyright infringement was in the USA.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/03/international-copyright-protection-how-does-it-w__
 

From the above:

 

Right, so if T2 infringed it would likely fall into US jurisdiction, T2 being US based.

[The_Rocketeer]

 

@Derb based on the website I linked, yes, but only if the copyright owner actually had legal copyright protections under US law.

[Derb]

2 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

 

@Derb based on the website I linked, yes, but only if the copyright owner actually had legal copyright protections under US law.

Anyone in the blue countries - see Berne Convention.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, Derb said:

Anyone in the blue countries - see Berne Convention.

Wonder what the US has against San Marino?

[Derb]

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Wonder what the US has against San Marino?

What does San Marino have against the rest of the world, you mean?

Edit: Idk if you are joking but this isn't extended by US law but international treaty.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Derb

[Pipcard]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:51 PM, swjr-swis said:

Quote

LICENSE CONDITIONS

You agree not to, and not to provide guidance or instruction to any other individual or entity on how to:

(...)

• make a copy of the Software or any part thereof (other than as set forth herein);

 

So much for having multiple installs of the game? Or keeping old versions around to finish playing a career, or to test differences between versions, or just for play/challenge purposes? Or copying the game out of the Steam folder into another place to ensure it doesn't get messed up by unexpected updates? Or even something as simple as sharing a craft file or a savegame, since that too would be 'making a copy of part of the software'. This was all explicitly allowed up to now.

Apparently that was part of the EULA before the Take-Two acquisition.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Pipcard

[radonek]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

For me, it boils down to this. I know that to play games with an EULA, I'm presumed to have agreed to the EULA. If I disagree with the EULA for whatever reason, I know what I'm supposed to do is not play the game, and walk away entirely. I don't have the option to reject the EULA and still play the game. Even if the EULA is completely illegal, that still isn't an option - I would have to legally challenge the EULA in court for amendments to be made to make it legal, and then still ultimately accept it or reject the game in its entirety.

I don't think it works like this. It would essentialy made bait-and-switch legal and lawfull.

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, radonek said:

I don't think it works like this. It would essentialy made bait-and-switch legal and lawfull.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly how all EULAs work.

It entirely and only depends on trust between user and producer - the user trusts the producer not to abuse the power they give them by agreeing to the EULA, and the producer trusts the user not to lie about agreeing to it. The reality is in nearly all cases they're not legally policable, let alone enforcable, but there has to be something, otherwise producers would be laughably exposed to copyright infringement, quasi-legal software piracy and so on.

Edit: I am speaking exclusively about EULAs in the context of videogaming, of course.

Edited March 8, 2018 by The_Rocketeer

[Van Disaster]

I'm fairly sure your local consumer protection ( and I imagine IP protection ) laws override any part of an EULA that contradicts them, so how much that document is worth is rather hard to discuss properly on an international forum.

I'm curious how much a click-agreement is worth too - how do you even prove I was the one who clicked "I agree"?

Edited March 9, 2018 by Van Disaster

[Punslinger]

On 3/7/2018 at 1:54 AM, Ace in Space said:

Okay first of all, I love your name.

Second, I think you've put it best. You conveyed more clearly what several of us were trying to say than anyone else. Well done.

Why, thank you!  The best thing was when I was playing Overwatch, and matchmaking dropped me on the same team as a dude called PunionRings.  Much fun was had.

Yeah, I've learned that anytime something changes, people love to panic and assume the worst.  On rare occasions, it might be warranted, but 99.9% of the time, the worst-case scenarios they talk about exist only in their imaginations.   It's amazing how much FUD you can cut through when you're dual-wielding Occam's and Hanlon's Razors!

[theJesuit]

@SQUAD

I,for one, would like to welcome our new EULA overlords.

Please keep KSP awesome and don't be evil. 

Peace.

[MaxPeck]

Companies can and do write whatever they want in a EULA.  It doesn't make them binding, enforceable or even legal.

I started to write a whole long wall of text about this, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation does a much better job...

https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas

 

[Wilhelm Kerman]

On 23/02/2018 at 6:42 AM, The_Rocketeer said:

And it won't affect you or your KSP gaming pleasure at all.

Doubt that

[DAL59]

[klgraham1013]

Preface:  I don't actually think this EULA will change anything,

I do find it really disturbing that people are cool with giving companies unwarranted power under the assumption that they won't use it.  It's just a weird concept to me.  We're going to give you all this over-reaching power to do all these things we don't want you to do, but it's cool.  We trust ya.

[MaxPeck]

You really don’t... companies can’t write things in a EULA that violate the law, well they can but it’ll never carry any legal force.  On top of that, EULAs are considered “contracts by adhesion” and are generally the weakest kind. You didn’t sign it, they can’t prove that you’re the one who clicked “accept” and the details of the EULA are deliberately written so as to obfuscate their intent or meaning.  A great number of license disputes are dismissed every year because a EULA, from a contractual standpoint, is unconscionable and unenforceable. 

Just because a company puts a line in a EULA that says “by clicking agree, you grant us the right to come in your house and raid your fridge anytime we want” doesn’t mean they have the actual legal right to do so. 

Its like with major league sports broadcasts. Courts have long maintained that you actually can record last nights game and watch it later and even keep that copy if you want. It’s called “time shifting” and it’s protected as fair use. That doesn’t stop the NFL from including a strongly worded warning after every game that you may not record in any format, rewatch, replay or tell your friends about the game.  They have no legal recourse if you do, as long as you’re not selling copies of the game, but even then there are arguments to be made about broadcasting over public spectrum and whether or not allowing that enters the broadcast into the public domain. 

In short, just do what everyone does. Shrug, click agree, and promptly ignore it.

[klgraham1013]

13 minutes ago, MaxPeck said:

You really don’t... companies can’t write things in a EULA that violate the law, well they can but it’ll never carry any legal force.  On top of that, EULAs are considered “contracts by adhesion” and are generally the weakest kind. You didn’t sign it, they can’t prove that you’re the one who clicked “accept” and the details of the EULA are deliberately written so as to obfuscate their intent or meaning.  A great number of license disputes are dismissed every year because a EULA, from a contractual standpoint, is unconscionable and unenforceable. 

Just because a company puts a line in a EULA that says “by clicking agree, you grant us the right to come in your house and raid your fridge anytime we want” doesn’t mean they have the actual legal right to do so. 

Its like with major league sports broadcasts. Courts have long maintained that you actually can record last nights game and watch it later and even keep that copy if you want. It’s called “time shifting” and it’s protected as fair use. That doesn’t stop the NFL from including a strongly worded warning after every game that you may not record in any format, rewatch, replay or tell your friends about the game.  They have no legal recourse if you do, as long as you’re not selling copies of the game, but even then there are arguments to be made about broadcasting over public spectrum and whether or not allowing that enters the broadcast into the public domain. 

In short, just do what everyone does. Shrug, click agree, and promptly ignore it.

I read this, and I believe it, but in this same thread people state companies must do this to protect their IP.  If they aren't legally enforceable, than how are they protection at all?  What's the point?  It's one or the other isn't it?  It really just feels like consumers are getting walking all over for no reason.

[Van Disaster]

2 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I read this, and I believe it, but in this same thread people state companies must do this to protect their IP.  If they aren't legally enforceable, than how are they protection at all?  What's the point?  It's one or the other isn't it?  It really just feels like consumers are getting walking all over for no reason.

Well, presumably it's not all or nothing - and there are external protections for IP just as there are external protections for consumers. None of what's written means anything until it's taken into a court anyway, TTI don't have a secret police branch as far as I know

[MechBFP]

9 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

If they aren't legally enforceable, than how are they protection at all?  What's the point?

Sometimes judges interrupt the laws differently, sometimes they apply the law incorrectly, sometimes the laws change, sometimes things will be weighted differently depending on if there were certain clauses, etc, etc, etc.

[klgraham1013]

You know what.  I'm totally putting a draconian EULA on the album I'm working on.  Try and stop me.  Think those other people in your car can listen to my music?  I don't think so.  They haven't licensed it.  What were you thinking?  You're obviously a criminal.  I'm revoking your license.  Take that evil doer.